President May be in Trouble

[beautifullywild77]

vliberatore... this is an open forum for those from around the world. As much as I disagree with Nova, they have every right to post their opinion on whatever thread they wish. Telling them to stay of our American politics is rude and uncalled for.

 

[kathylove]

One of the reasons I like this forum is because we get to discuss all kinds of subjects with others who are not products of the American media and politicians, and who have experienced different cultures and perspectives. I occasionally try to read news specifically written in other countries for the same reason.

IMHO, the logical and fair tax would be a national sales tax INSTEAD of an income tax (not in addition to it!). A small number of essential items could be exempted, such as basic food, maybe public transportation, possibly used cars under a certain price, used clothes or cheap clothes - not sure what, exactly. Maybe even very low cost houses should be exempt. But it should be arranged so that a really thrifty, low income family could get by paying only a little tax by sticking with basics. But if the poor people want (and are able) to go out to a restaurant or buy a big screen TV, then they will pay the sales tax, too. And rich people could also avoid most tax if they only buy those basics. But most people above the poverty line would buy what they do now, and would pay the sales tax. That would mean that only businesses would have to deal with the IRS. Since most already deal with state sales tax, it wouldn't be nearly the burden on business that it is on every citizen now having to file taxes. Then the IRS could focus much more closely on the relatively few filing (a lot less businesses in the US than individual citizens).

Of course, the lobbyists would get busy and try to exempt all kinds of things that make no sense, just as they do now in each state with a sales tax. That would be one of the difficulties to deal with.

This makes total sense to me. But it will never happen because WAY too many government employees AND powerful people and businesses have too much vested in the present system. Too bad - I think it would be much more fair, and a lot less burdensome (and invasive into private lives for the IRS) than what we have now.

 

[vliberatore]

Kathy, if I remember correctly, in order for the scenario to work that you (and many economists) have proposed, the sales tax rate has to be something like 33-35%. Not critiquing, just adding to your post.

BW77, if there is one thing that I have no tolerance for is people who aren't from the US trying to say how the US should be ran, when they do not know. I'm not going over and telling Greece how to fix their economy, Nova-who has little to no experience with the US economy/taxes-is effectively doing that. You may call it rude, I don't care.

You see what happened there? You said I should respect everyone's opinion, while disrespecting mine. Like you said, it's an open forum.

 

[kathylove]

I have no idea what the rate would have to be. I guess it would depend on how many items are exempted. I think it would have to be somewhere around 20% or a little more in order to be workable. People would scream if it was higher, I think. The gov't would have to either spend less, or get the remainder some other way. But I would NEVER trust them to start a sales tax without revoking the income tax. We would just end up with bigger gov't in more trouble than it is now, and 2 big taxes instead of 1.

The fact that each customer would see exactly how much the federal gov't spending is adding to the price (instead of them plucking it out of paychecks before people receive them) would make citizens more aware of the costs of gov't - another reason it won't happen.

 

[Michael823]

if there is one thing that I have no tolerance for is people who aren't from the US trying to say how the US should be ran, when they do not know. I'm not going over and telling Greece how to fix their economy, Nova-who has little to no experience with the US economy/taxes-is effectively doing that. You may call it rude, I don't care.

Then why do we have foreign policy?... If we shouldn't be told how to run our country, then why is it that we occupy so many countries not named America to control how they run their countries?

And furthermore, who does know how to run this country? You?...

I'm not criticizing, I just find it hypocritical (as American's) to say who can and can't speak on behalf of American issues, when it's such a part of our culture/system to dictate the lives of others (in other countries, and at home).

 

[tsst]

I think it's telling that the one country who came out of the recession with the healthiest economy was one of your socialist dystopias.

But that's probably just some people lying.

It's also telling that most of the socialized world is trying to adjust a little away from it to help recover (including Canada). Our problems here get worse the more our supposed leaders steer us in the direction of socialism.

Oh and a 400+% trade surplus with the USA probably didn't hurt Canadas recovery. You're welcome.

... IMHO, the logical and fair tax would be a national sales tax INSTEAD of an income tax (not in addition to it!). A small number of essential items could be exempted, such as basic food, maybe public transportation, possibly used cars under a certain price, used clothes or cheap clothes - not sure what, exactly. Maybe even very low cost houses should be exempt. But it should be arranged so that a really thrifty, low income family could get by paying only a little tax by sticking with basics. But if the poor people want (and are able) to go out to a restaurant or buy a big screen TV, then they will pay the sales tax, too. And rich people could also avoid most tax if they only buy those basics. But most people above the poverty line would buy what they do now, and would pay the sales tax. That would mean that only businesses would have to deal with the IRS. Since most already deal with state sales tax, it wouldn't be nearly the burden on business that it is on every citizen now having to file taxes. Then the IRS could focus much more closely on the relatively few filing (a lot less businesses in the US than individual citizens).

Of course, the lobbyists would get busy and try to exempt all kinds of things that make no sense, just as they do now in each state with a sales tax. That would be one of the difficulties to deal with.

This makes total sense to me. But it will never happen because WAY too many government employees AND powerful people and businesses have too much vested in the present system. Too bad - I think it would be much more fair, and a lot less burdensome (and invasive into private lives for the IRS) than what we have now.

I like the idea of a hybrid tax. It would be a multi-part system that would include a national sales tax and a consumption tax (INSTEAD of an income tax). The national sales tax would catch ALL using our economy, including tourists and illegals(I mean undocumented workers). Exempt the first say $20,000(a guess) each year for essentials like food etc. The exemption would be for EVERYONE including billionaires. The consumption tax part would catch foreign items (imports, exports, purchases, etc).

Along with this our system of trade would need to be fair trade not free trade. What I mean by that is if we require an industry here to pay a certain minimum wage, meet EPA guidelines, meet OSHA guidelines, meet labor guidelines, etc any product brought into the US would require the same guidelines be met by the importing company. No more taking a job paying $25/hr, meeting all the above guidelines and moving it from Texas to Mexico and paying $3/hr, churning out toxins, using unsafe materials, working in horrid conditions, using child labor, and then import the widget back into Texas to sell.

Probably the most important part is the fedgov needs downsized immensely. Departments not specifically authorized by the US Constitution need to go away or go to state level as intended. The bigger and more out of control our gov has gotten the worse off the people have become.

This country became the greatest nation on the planet in under 200 years because we were a constitutional republic, with limited government, the most personal freedom and systems that allowed our people to excel. During that time the rest of the planet has been in decline under socialism/communism. It really dumbfounds me that those in our gov that claim to know better can't see such obvious historical precedence.

 

[beautifullywild77]

BW77, if there is one thing that I have no tolerance for is people who aren't from the US trying to say how the US should be ran, when they do not know. I'm not going over and telling Greece how to fix their economy, Nova-who has little to no experience with the US economy/taxes-is effectively doing that. You may call it rude, I don't care.

You see what happened there? You said I should respect everyone's opinion, while disrespecting mine. Like you said, it's an open forum.

I didnt say you had to had to agree with everyones opinion. I said telling them to stay out of American Politics on an open forum that has members from around the world was rude and uncalled for. Anyone can have an opinion about American Politics even if they do not live here. That is what makes it so great. I dont agree with Nova one bit but I am not going to tell him to butt out either.


Tsst, again there is a reason we are friends toots

 

[kathylove]

"I like the idea of a hybrid tax. It would be a multi-part system that would include a national sales tax and a consumption tax (INSTEAD of an income tax). The national sales tax would catch ALL using our economy, including tourists and illegals(I mean undocumented workers). Exempt the first say $20,000(a guess) each year for essentials like food etc. The exemption would be for EVERYONE including billionaires. The consumption tax part would catch foreign items (imports, exports, purchases, etc)."

I also like the idea that a sales tax would apply to everyone who buys things - not just those who file income taxes. A $20K exemption for all sounds fair - BUT - then it couldn't happen at the point of sale. It would require filing individual paperwork, as we do now. It would be great to relieve individuals of the burden of dealing with the IRS and let only businesses do that. If we could figure out exemptions of really basic stuff at the point of sale, maybe we could accomplish more or less what you said, but without as much paperwork.

Of course, unless I become President (or some other unlikely candidate wins), it will never happen anyway, lol!

 

[vliberatore]

Then why do we have foreign policy?... If we shouldn't be told how to run our country, then why is it that we occupy so many countries not named America to control how they run their countries?

And furthermore, who does know how to run this country? You?...

I'm not criticizing, I just find it hypocritical (as American's) to say who can and can't speak on behalf of American issues, when it's such a part of our culture/system to dictate the lives of others (in other countries, and at home).

I don't think the US should be occupying other countries/telling them how to operate unless the request it.

It's only hypocritical if I think we should.

 

[Rich Z]

I don't think the US should be occupying other countries/telling them how to operate unless the request it.

It's only hypocritical if I think we should.

Even if they request it, their problems really shouldn't be OUR problems if it does not directly threaten our nation.

 

[tsst]

I thought he claimed not to be muslim? :shrugs:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...uslim_n_1912400.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

And she is such an eloquent speaker! :roflmao:

 

[Dorgrim]

The president in trouble?
I don't really think so. Even if people don't like Obama, many of us would much rather have someone who pushes for healthcare for all rather than someone who thinks 47% of the usa isnt worth listening to or considering. I much prefer a president who has compassion for others rather than apathy for the actual struggles that people in our world face. Economics is not a zero sum game.

tldr-

 

[kathylove]

This whole uproar about Romney's "47%" tape has been really annoying me. Although I am not a big fan of EITHER candidate, I don't like half truths or misleading people, either.

I listened to the tape before listening to news people interview him about it. What I heard him say on the tape was that since 47% of voters don't pay income tax, they won't be interested in his message of lower taxes, so there is no point focusing energy or money to sway them. They are mostly going to vote for Obama no matter what he says. So his campaign is much better spent on the undecided voters who DO care about lower taxes.

I did not hear him say that he didn't care about that 47% of the people, only that he can't afford to care about their VOTES.

The media constantly turns it around to say he doesn't care about THEM instead of their votes. It is true that he didn't state it as clearly as he likely would have had he been speaking in a public setting. But I doubt that there is a person alive who always phrases everything they say perfectly, even in private conversations that are not expected to become public.

I am glad that he didn't backtrack on what he said. Even if it wasn't eloquently spoken, it is totally logical to me that you don't spend your funds trying to convince people to vote for you if it is highly unlikely that you can change their minds anyway. Work on the undecided voters most likely to be swayed by your arguments - the only logical way to campaign.

 

[Dorgrim]

This whole uproar about Romney's "47%" tape has been really annoying me. Although I am not a big fan of EITHER candidate, I don't like half truths or misleading people, either.

I listened to the tape before listening to news people interview him about it. What I heard him say on the tape was that since 47% of voters don't pay income tax, they won't be interested in his message of lower taxes, so there is no point focusing energy or money to sway them. They are mostly going to vote for Obama no matter what he says. So his campaign is much better spent on the undecided voters who DO care about lower taxes.

I did not hear him say that he didn't care about that 47% of the people, only that he can't afford to care about their VOTES.

The media constantly turns it around to say he doesn't care about THEM instead of their votes. It is true that he didn't state it as clearly as he likely would have had he been speaking in a public setting. But I doubt that there is a person alive who always phrases everything they say perfectly, even in private conversations that are not expected to become public.

I am glad that he didn't backtrack on what he said. Even if it wasn't eloquently spoken, it is totally logical to me that you don't spend your funds trying to convince people to vote for you if it is highly unlikely that you can change their minds anyway. Work on the undecided voters most likely to be swayed by your arguments - the only logical way to campaign.

I suppose! I think for me, I took it personally as him not caring because he mentions in the tape the 47% of people paying no income tax, and those being the "moochers" that will vote for obama regardless. I know plenty of people on foodstamps who will vote for romney. I suppose I felt that he was disregarding people who use any form of federal aid. Hmm.. i don't know, I suppose even if i dislike people I don't try to disregard them?

;-;

 

[starsevol]

I suppose! I think for me, I took it personally as him not caring because he mentions in the tape the 47% of people paying no income tax, and those being the "moochers" that will vote for obama regardless. I know plenty of people on foodstamps who will vote for romney. I suppose I felt that he was disregarding people who use any form of federal aid. Hmm.. i don't know, I suppose even if i dislike people I don't try to disregard them?

;-;

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps you feel the way you feel because you blindly gobble down everything the media spoonfeeds you?
The media does not just tell the news, they tell you what you are supposed to think about it and how you are supposed to feel about it. They edit and spin and outright lie to make the public see the side they want seen.

Now rereading what I just typed, I know how insane I sound. I would be hesitant to believe it myself but I am very close to someone who has worked for a major news organization for over 20 years, and he won't even watch the news. He knows firsthand how the media lies.

 

[kathylove]

I'm sure that a few of that 47% will vote for Romney - but I doubt that MANY will. A high percentage of that group will decide that Romney won't offer them as much as Obama will, and so won't vote for him.

Conversely: I'm sure that Obama also targets whatever groups are least likely to vote for him, and doesn't waste money on those groups. For example, I doubt that very many business owners will vote for Obama (although I am sure that SOME will). So I doubt that he will waste his time and money on going to meetings or campaigning towards business groups - or any other demographics that his experts say are not worth pursuing. Luckily for him, he didn't get caught actually saying those obvious tactics.

I wouldn't take offense that either of them pursue the votes that they are most likely to sway. BUT - I would guess that the groups most likely to vote for either candidate ARE the groups that perceive they will get the most help from "their" candidate if he is elected. That doesn't mean that candidate will totally ignore the rest of the populace. But he may indeed be more helpful to those who voted for him, at least in the short term. In the long term, I am afraid it is going to take a lot of pain for almost everyone to set straight the financial mess we have gotten ourselves into - no matter who gets elected.

 

[tsst]

...
tldr-

Didn't realize he was a member of Seal Team 6. :shrugs: Probably a more accurate statement would have been I was too busy playing one of my 100 rounds of golf! :roflmao:

 

[kathylove]

Any herpers who follow the news about giant pythons and lost snakes and other mainstream news about reptiles should KNOW better than to believe anything the media says about ANYTHING, lol!

Anytime I see anything reported in the news, or on supposedly "true" shows that I KNOW is wrong, makes me question anything I EVER hear or see from the same source about ANY subject in the future.

 

[The_Thunderer]

LOL. I was thinking that, but you posted before I could, TSST... And I STILL can't rep you!

 

[Dorgrim]

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps you feel the way you feel because you blindly gobble down everything the media spoonfeeds you?
The media does not just tell the news, they tell you what you are supposed to think about it and how you are supposed to feel about it. They edit and spin and outright lie to make the public see the side they want seen.

Now rereading what I just typed, I know how insane I sound. I would be hesitant to believe it myself but I am very close to someone who has worked for a major news organization for over 20 years, and he won't even watch the news. He knows firsthand how the media lies.

I just watched the video of what romney said. I didnt read about it or take it second hand. I just watched the video. I feel pretty offended that you see me as ignorant enough to "gobble down everything the media spoon feeds me" I dont ignore the news, but I don't take it without caution. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that what was in that video was not particularly friend making on romney's part.

I work in the entertainment industry and I know what marketing is all about, you see the classic signs of pitches from both sides with pretty blatant twists on things. I don't think attacking people helps your argument either :/